Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what state it reports (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), thus going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific data elements. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what information it provides. The four listed components comprehensively define the expected return content, making the description complete for practical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden of parameter explanation. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no params, and the description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary detail about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'toolkit state', enumerating four distinct components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specificity clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly communicates its use case as a read-only informational query about the toolkit's state. It does not explicitly suggest alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear—this is the go-to tool when an agent needs an overview of the current environment. Since no parameters exist, there's no ambiguity about invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.